Kathleen Sebelius did not attend the same middle school I did.
If she had, she've seen girls, ages 12, 13, 14, who were pregnant. Sometimes for the second or third time. She'd've seen girls who'd just crossed the threshold into their teen years talking about having sex with boys, even with grown men, all unprotected. She'd've seen a cheerleader on her first day of class in 9th grade, clearly pregnant in her cheerleading uniform. She'd know that these girls who got pregnant disappeared from school, never to be seen again. She'd've seen real life, the real world, of pregnant pre-teens and teens. Their pregnancies meant a life--a very young, uninformed life--derailed. Given their ages, I suspect that their pregnancies derailed more than the one life.
Sebelius, the Obama Administration's Health and Human Services secretary, shocked the world of people who care whether or not preteens and teens conceive unwanted children by blocking plans to make Plan B, or "morning after" contraception, available over the counter (OTC). The much-anticipated OTC availability of this intervention had already received FDA approval. Sebelius's countermove against the FDA's OK--and to the imprimatur of a large number of medical professionals, including the American Academy of Pediatrics--was Stone Age decision-making in the 21st century. One member of the AAP called her decision "medically inexplicable." She also has failed the girls of our nation who, through their life circumstances, ignorance, and myriad other factors, find themselves having sex irresponsibly.
Her decision keeps Plan B behind pharmacy counters, available only to women ages 17 and over without a prescription. According to data from the Guttmacher Institute, in 2006, the teenage abortion rate was 19.3 abortions for every 1000 women. Sebelius's decision helps to ensure that the rate of teenage abortions will not decrease. Her decision helps to ensure that rather than obtaining a straightforward hormonal intervention to avoid pregnancy, a girl--and teenagers are still girls--will instead have to wait to see if implantation occurs, if an embryo develops, and then make the decision to have a surgical procedure to terminate the pregnancy, or--like so many of my classmates in middle school--carry a child to term and become mothers in their teens. Lives, derailed.
That one night that a high-school freshman drinks too much, depresses her judgment, and has unprotected sex? That night leads to a crossroads. Before Sebelius's decision, that crossroad held the promise of including a path to Plan B, a way for a girl to head off a lifetime of serious consequences for that single poor decision. Thanks to Sebelius, the options now still consist only of wait and see if there's a pregnancy. It's a one-way ticket to anxiety at the least and to another crossroad of decisionmaking between abortion or having a child while a teen.
Here's a newsflash: Teenage pregnancy carries a large number of health risks for both the teen and the child. And of course, it's a risk to a healthy life or decent education for both mother and child. Misguided moralists may claim that a girl who has unprotected sex must deal with the consequences of it. To that, I respond that a child is not a consequence, and the girl in question is herself not yet an adult. To that I also respond that these moralists have not witnessed, as I have, a pregnant teenage girl throwing herself down the stairs in an unsuccessful attempt to trigger a miscarriage of a pregnancy that was the result of a one-night stand, of about 15 minutes of bad decision-making. She was 16.
Some people seem to be unaware of these outcomes for a teen pregnancy for both the mother and child. Chuck Grassley, the Republican US senator from Iowa, was quoted in an AP story as saying, "This is the right decision based on a lack of scientific evidence that it's safe to allow minors access to this drug, much less over-the-counter." Clearly, the gentleman from Iowa needs a few instructions in how reproduction and contraception work. The "drug" is hormones, mimics of the hormones these teens make in their bodies already. These hormones have several effects on reproductive tissues that can prevent either conception itself or possibly implantation of a fertilized egg. There's no mystery about it and no question of available evidence.
What the gentleman from Iowa--and his fellow moralists--fail to understand is that actually becoming pregnant, carrying a child to term, and having a baby all are far, far more damaging to the health of a teenager than any Plan B pill ever would be. It's irresponsible to try to ward off a pregnancy preventive on the grounds of health concerns or "evidence" when the option is health-damaging, lives-destroying pregnancy.
Plan B was going to be an OTC intervention that could be used before a girl sets foot on the pathway to lives derailed. One OTC pill packet could do it. And Sebelius blocked it. She claims, according a report from ABC, that she was "worried about confusing 11-year-olds." This intervention costs $50. An 11-year-old is unlikely to have that kind of money lying around, much less sufficient interest in Plan B to become "confused" about it. Unless, of course, that 11-year-old is like one of my family members from a previous generation who did, in fact, become pregnant at age 11. Let's just say that having access to Plan B would have made a huge difference not only in her life but in the lives of many, many others. The fetus from that pregnancy was stillborn.
We're in an era when girls are becoming able to conceive at earlier and earlier ages. Having an intervention available that could keep a girl not even in her teens from a pregnancy is a logical and reasonable option. Issues of responsibility or morality or gnashing of teeth over their youth do not efface the cold hard facts: Some girls are having sex at this age. Some girls are getting pregnant at this age. Their hormones are actively readying them for pregnancy, even as their minds and bodies and the society in which they live have not. They deserve, just as much as any 17-year-old or grown woman, access to interventions that can keep them from conceiving. It's easy to say from an airmchair that they shouldn't be having sex. Of course they shouldn't. But some are, and that is a simple, stark reality.
I've seen the outcome of it in person. Has Kathleen Sebelius?
Clik here to view.![]()
If she had, she've seen girls, ages 12, 13, 14, who were pregnant. Sometimes for the second or third time. She'd've seen girls who'd just crossed the threshold into their teen years talking about having sex with boys, even with grown men, all unprotected. She'd've seen a cheerleader on her first day of class in 9th grade, clearly pregnant in her cheerleading uniform. She'd know that these girls who got pregnant disappeared from school, never to be seen again. She'd've seen real life, the real world, of pregnant pre-teens and teens. Their pregnancies meant a life--a very young, uninformed life--derailed. Given their ages, I suspect that their pregnancies derailed more than the one life.
Sebelius, the Obama Administration's Health and Human Services secretary, shocked the world of people who care whether or not preteens and teens conceive unwanted children by blocking plans to make Plan B, or "morning after" contraception, available over the counter (OTC). The much-anticipated OTC availability of this intervention had already received FDA approval. Sebelius's countermove against the FDA's OK--and to the imprimatur of a large number of medical professionals, including the American Academy of Pediatrics--was Stone Age decision-making in the 21st century. One member of the AAP called her decision "medically inexplicable." She also has failed the girls of our nation who, through their life circumstances, ignorance, and myriad other factors, find themselves having sex irresponsibly.
Her decision keeps Plan B behind pharmacy counters, available only to women ages 17 and over without a prescription. According to data from the Guttmacher Institute, in 2006, the teenage abortion rate was 19.3 abortions for every 1000 women. Sebelius's decision helps to ensure that the rate of teenage abortions will not decrease. Her decision helps to ensure that rather than obtaining a straightforward hormonal intervention to avoid pregnancy, a girl--and teenagers are still girls--will instead have to wait to see if implantation occurs, if an embryo develops, and then make the decision to have a surgical procedure to terminate the pregnancy, or--like so many of my classmates in middle school--carry a child to term and become mothers in their teens. Lives, derailed.
That one night that a high-school freshman drinks too much, depresses her judgment, and has unprotected sex? That night leads to a crossroads. Before Sebelius's decision, that crossroad held the promise of including a path to Plan B, a way for a girl to head off a lifetime of serious consequences for that single poor decision. Thanks to Sebelius, the options now still consist only of wait and see if there's a pregnancy. It's a one-way ticket to anxiety at the least and to another crossroad of decisionmaking between abortion or having a child while a teen.
Here's a newsflash: Teenage pregnancy carries a large number of health risks for both the teen and the child. And of course, it's a risk to a healthy life or decent education for both mother and child. Misguided moralists may claim that a girl who has unprotected sex must deal with the consequences of it. To that, I respond that a child is not a consequence, and the girl in question is herself not yet an adult. To that I also respond that these moralists have not witnessed, as I have, a pregnant teenage girl throwing herself down the stairs in an unsuccessful attempt to trigger a miscarriage of a pregnancy that was the result of a one-night stand, of about 15 minutes of bad decision-making. She was 16.
Some people seem to be unaware of these outcomes for a teen pregnancy for both the mother and child. Chuck Grassley, the Republican US senator from Iowa, was quoted in an AP story as saying, "This is the right decision based on a lack of scientific evidence that it's safe to allow minors access to this drug, much less over-the-counter." Clearly, the gentleman from Iowa needs a few instructions in how reproduction and contraception work. The "drug" is hormones, mimics of the hormones these teens make in their bodies already. These hormones have several effects on reproductive tissues that can prevent either conception itself or possibly implantation of a fertilized egg. There's no mystery about it and no question of available evidence.
What the gentleman from Iowa--and his fellow moralists--fail to understand is that actually becoming pregnant, carrying a child to term, and having a baby all are far, far more damaging to the health of a teenager than any Plan B pill ever would be. It's irresponsible to try to ward off a pregnancy preventive on the grounds of health concerns or "evidence" when the option is health-damaging, lives-destroying pregnancy.
Plan B was going to be an OTC intervention that could be used before a girl sets foot on the pathway to lives derailed. One OTC pill packet could do it. And Sebelius blocked it. She claims, according a report from ABC, that she was "worried about confusing 11-year-olds." This intervention costs $50. An 11-year-old is unlikely to have that kind of money lying around, much less sufficient interest in Plan B to become "confused" about it. Unless, of course, that 11-year-old is like one of my family members from a previous generation who did, in fact, become pregnant at age 11. Let's just say that having access to Plan B would have made a huge difference not only in her life but in the lives of many, many others. The fetus from that pregnancy was stillborn.
We're in an era when girls are becoming able to conceive at earlier and earlier ages. Having an intervention available that could keep a girl not even in her teens from a pregnancy is a logical and reasonable option. Issues of responsibility or morality or gnashing of teeth over their youth do not efface the cold hard facts: Some girls are having sex at this age. Some girls are getting pregnant at this age. Their hormones are actively readying them for pregnancy, even as their minds and bodies and the society in which they live have not. They deserve, just as much as any 17-year-old or grown woman, access to interventions that can keep them from conceiving. It's easy to say from an airmchair that they shouldn't be having sex. Of course they shouldn't. But some are, and that is a simple, stark reality.
I've seen the outcome of it in person. Has Kathleen Sebelius?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![]()
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.